What's comical are the left leaning commentator's, and writers who
think Obama is out manuevering Putin, and joined by those who comment on the
articles. Putin is showing us how after 5 years we still have an inexperience
president, and a low information voting block that voted him back.

This is ludicrous. On so many levels. I'll defer for now, but what would
Parker want done differently? War, which the right wing claims they didn't
want? This right wing talking point highlighted in this piece is beyond absurd.

"We can't quite seem to get it quite right at the helm. Either
we're saddled with a "decidinator" who is feared for his lack of
pause — or we're stuck with an over-thinker so afraid of making the
wrong decision that he paralyzes himself into a pose of ineptitude." . Yet
one cost us thousands of live billions of dollars and a divided politic not seen
in decades. The other a peaceful solution, and fodder for the ideologues. You
know Kathleen despite all it's faults Russia has been a partner of the US
many times in history. It's always messy it's always, controversial,
but the world is generally better off for it. Think World War II, missile
disarmament, Cuban missile crisis, and now Syria.

Ignoring the facts and repeating the same nonsense over and over again, does not
make the nonsense valid.

Putin had no intention of getting involved
in the Syrian conflict. He supports Assad and denies that Assad had anything to
do with the release of chemical weapons. Yet somehow, he is now directly
involved with destroying those chemical weapons. How is that him outmaneuvering
Obama? From the very beginning Obama wanted Russia involved in this and now
Russia is. How is Obama getting what he wanted in the first place an example of
Obama being outmaneuvered?

Russia is doing exactly what they said
they would not do and exactly what Obama wanted them to do - on top of which,
Russia is doing exactly what Republicans wanted done, and the fact that they are
condemning Obama for getting to Russia to act, shows the depths of their
hypocrisy.

Obama got his way. The only people who were outmaneuvered
were the Russians and the Republicans.

A President taking his lumps from critics goes with the turf. At least for now,
the world has stepped back from the brink. Negotiation instead of shooting is a
welcome development in my view. Brinksmanship is such a dangerous path for
achieving objectives. It doesn’t matter who outmaneuvered who. I’ll
gladly keep reading as Kathleen Parker explains it to us with 20/20 hindsight.
Once the missiles are launched, events are difficult to control.

If Obama thought up a cure for cancer in his spare time, the Right would still
complain that he hadn't done anything about the common cold. If nothing
else, we should be glad that some innocent Syrians are going to go on living who
would otherwise be gone.

"Putin now has taken the high road, scolding the U.S. for its
"commonplace" interventions in countries not its own."
Really...Does the world really think that Putin is taking the high road when he
supports Assad and evidence is pointing more and more that the Syrian government
launched the chemical weapons. I suggest we look at world opinion again and ask
the question do we think a world leaders should support countries that uses
chemical weapons. Putin has now backed himself into a corner. The only way he
can gain any world respect is to facilitate the complete the removal of these
chemical weapons, which is a win win for everybody. by the way, who warned
against the use of chemical weapons?

Your comment about innocent Syrians going on to live who would
otherwise be gone. Do you understand that Assad is killing Syrians by the 10s
of thousands? Stopping his nerve gas attacks will not save lives. He will
continue to kill and create millions of refugees with conventional weapons.

As for any of you who believe that if Romney were President Republicans
would support an attack on Syria, I for one go on record as saying I'd be
just as against it as with Obama.Funny how many Obama supporters said that
Romney wanted to start wars with Russia, Syria, and Iran. Must be hard to watch
Obamas dilemma now.

m.g., I know the civil war in Syria will continue, and that more people will
die. I was referring, however, to the Syrian version of "Shock &
Awe", which would no doubt have produced plenty of "collateral
damage". That, IMHO, would be much worse than allowing Mr. Putin a moment in
the spotlight.

As for Romney, his friends in the defense industry
could have applied enough pressure to make one more war very possible.

OK, The President went out of his way not to intervene in Syria's civil war
over the past year or so. The neo-cons wanted intervention, but the American
people clearly did not. When the President did want to act, Congress
(especially the GOP) was on the path of saying no. A diplomatic solution was
found which very well could peacefully remove chemical weapons without military
intervention or loss of life. If it is a big game in the end, intervention is
on the table down the road. The idea originated with Kerry and was picked up on
by the Russians, and a deal was reached. Everyone happy, right? Not the GOP.
They didn't want Obama to intervene, but they criticize him for not
intervening. Their babbling would make Alice in Wonderland look sane.
Here's the bottom line. Despite the complaining of the right wing, this
was a diplomatic masterpiece by Obama. If you wanted something different, tell
us what it was. War? The ways of the neo-cons don't work and for that
they are upset.

With the war weary American public, I doubt any President
right now could instigate a full scale war, even if it was necessary. That due
to the fact that we stayed way too long in Afghanistan and Iraq with no exit
strategy. That is why Kerry was saying that the attack in Syria, should it
come, would be small and quick. What Kerry and Obama have done is the opposite
of the Teddy Roosevelt policy of "Talk softly and carry a big stick".
Theirs has become talk loundly and carry a small stick.

This is the third opinion article published by the Deseret News in five days
griping that Putin outfoxed Obama. Again, if chemical weapons are destroyed
without the U.S, having to fire a shot, who cares? Moreover does the Deseret
News really think that anyone would have been better off if the U.S. had fired
some missiles or dropped some bombs? I do not.

Obama threatened to knock out Assad's warmaking capacity BECAUSE of use of
chem weapons. Assad says, "OK, I'll give up my chem weapons."
That's what Obama wanted. Assad would have done nothing without the
threat. Obama's threat was what mattered; Putin is playing catch up.

Syria is having to give up their weapons of mass destruction. ... without a
single bullet being fired. You call it being out maneuvered, others of us call
a good old poker move to make the other player show and play their hand. Do
you really think if we had not threatened air strikes Syria would have
capitulated.

I know.... see failure in everything.... it is the
popular thing to do. But I look at it as billions saved in US tax payers
money, thousands of lives spared, and we still go what we wanted. If we could
only get out played by a Russian colonel more often.... life would be
wonderful.

I hope Putin continues to out maneuver us over and over
again if the net result is we get what we want. The weapons gone... that is
what we wanted... right?

"I didn't set a red line," Obama has said. "The world set a red
line."

"This not only is false but sounds petulant."

What a sad statement. The massacre of hundreds, if not thousands of
civilians is not to be considered a crossing of a line? What then does dear
Kathleen Parker as crossing a line that society commonly accepts. Was the
number of people killed not enough? Was use of poison gas not sinister enough?
What Kathleen would constitute in your mind as an act that crosses a line.

Some consider spanking kids as crossing a line. Some consider abuse of
seniors as a line crossed. Most consider rape and murder a line crossed.

But the gassing and genocide of innocent civilians, regardless of who
did the act, that crosses no societal lines.

Please don't tell
me the lines are dependent on who the president... that we have some kind of
variable ethics here. Genocide or mass murder is a line crossed under a
Republican administration, but not so under a Democrat administration. Please
tell me you are not that... evil yourself.